Politically Correct History

Lew Rockwell ^ | 1/23/03 | Thomas Dilorenzo

[GOPcapitalist]

Dixie bump! I can't wait for the Wlat brigade and Claremonster cult to squirm over this one!

Things like these show their true colors because they end up siding with the likes of Jesse Jackson Jr, Eric "The Red" Foner, "Noam" McPherson, Asa, Sebesta, and of course the first Lincoln immortalizer, Karl Marx.

[Dionysius]

You mustn't leave out his other two sons, the beneficiaries of a shakedown of Anheuser-Busch by PUSH. They received a North Chicago distributorship worth huge bucks albeit neither had any previous beverage experience.

[stand watie]

NOPE! though he is one of the offenders, the NPS for DECADES has been anti-southron & PC!

the bureaucrats are also all too often RACISTS!

that i KNOW from expierience.

FRee dixie,sw

[Spirited]

"It will reinforce the leftist stereotypes. They don't need any more help."

Having just come from an education thread where a poster left this concept, "Ms. Schlafly is about as far right as they come.." I am understanding that miseducation is being carried out in many places. Very soon we will dismiss Ann Coulter and Ronald Reagan as foam-at-the-mouth beasts, too right here on a "conservative" website or a "Constituion-conscious" entity.

I'd say that truth is no-where valued or sought. We make heroes out of brigands and vice versa even in the most "clean" circles.

Lee is particularly villified and I am of the belief that it was almost solely his conduct, personal and public, at the end of the conflict which allows this nation to exist as supposedly one today.

[Hacksaw]

FirstFlaBn summed it up very well on the 'Southern Bias' at Civil War Sites thread

Well, I am sure the GOP and Bush will legislatively correct this and see that the battlefields remain battlefields and not anti-southern indictrination centers.... (sarcasm)

What I would like to know is why Jackson's amendment was not shot down in flames. I am really getting sick of all this PC crap.

[NYDave]

I thought the distributorship was either coke or pepsi. I could be wrong but you're right about the Op PUSH shakedown.
Rev Jesse operates like a true, old-time mustache-pete. He runs a pure extortion business. It ashamed the IRS has been, apparently, told hands-off on Jesse although he was audited and paid a small amount of money sometime in the 80's.

[aomagrat]

Legislating history? What'll these idiots think of next?

[Non-Sequitur]

I can't wait for the Wlat brigade and Claremonster cult to squirm over this one!

Barf over this one would be more like it.

[coydog]

Time to organize a corps of volunteers to actually go into the park areas and (quietly) raise hell, stage-whispering things, MSTing the 'official truth' of staff and guides and talking loudly so that others may overhear them. It would be difficult to justify throwing you out just for 'discussing things amongst yourselves" and record photo and video evidence just in case (video and photo teams should maintain a discreet distance so that no public connection is drawn between them and 'those pesky disruptors'). Rotate your 'truth squads' so that they don't know who to watch. This could be fun!

[billbears]

another constitutional amendment was proposed that would have outlawed secession (See H. Newcomb Morse, "The Foundations and Meaning of Secession," Stetson Law Review, vol. 15, 1986, pp. 419–36). This is very telling, for it proves that Congress believed that secession was in fact constitutional under the Tenth Amendment. It would not have proposed an amendment outlawing secession if the Constitution already prohibited it.

Ouch!! Better put some ice on that Non.

[4CJ]

Mr. Guthrie proposed the following:

"The Union of the States under the Constitution is indissoluble, and no State can secede from the Union, or nullify an act of Congress, or absolve its citizens from their paramount obligation of obedience to the Constitution and laws of the United States."

Mr. Field offered:

"The Union of the States, under the Constitution, is indissoluble."

And this:

"No State shall withdraw from the Union without the consent of all the States, given in a Convention of the States, convened in pursuance of an act passed by two-thirds of each House of Congress."

Mr. Goodrich proposed:

"And no State can secede from the Union, or nullify an act of Congress, or absolve its citizens from their paramount obligations of obedience to the Constitution and laws of the United States."

Lucius E. Chittenden, Report of the debates and proceedings in the secret session of the conference convention, for proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States, held at Washington, D.C., in February, A.D. 1861, New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1864, pp. 396-398.

[Non-Sequitur]

Ouch!! Better put some ice on that Non.

Considering DiLusional/s track record I'm not medicating anything until I learn more about it. He seems to be running true to course once again.

Tommy claims one amendment was proposed in March, after the seven southern states had rebelled. I looked at the Congressional Globe for March 2nd and nothing is mentioned about it so it obvously wasn't proposed in the House or Senate. In his article Morse talks about amendments, plural, proposed while the southern states were in the process of seceding which was in January, not March, so I'm not sure where Tommy got the information he printed. Regardless, you are as familiar with what was going on in January with all the compromises and I don't remember a single one of them dealing with outlawing secession, do you?

Now I'm not willing to say that Tommy is streaching the truth again, but regardless of whether he is full of crap or not I must say that if it existed it's still a good thing that any amendment preventing secession never saw the light of day. As the Chief Justice pointed out in his majority decision in Texas v. White such an amendment would be a waste of time. Secession as practiced by the southern states was not constitutional to begin with.